Duty to report and the Penn State sex abuse case

There has been a lot of discussion about the legal and moral duty to report known or suspected child abuse. I don’t really expect a response from the Powers that Be in this thread but I think they should be discussing their obligations with regards to the thread The PSU scandal and me

They have no obligations. Not a very long discussion.

The duty to report has to do with children. I am assuming the OP is being truthful and is an adult. The issue has to do with protecting those who we assume can not defend themselves not trying to compel someone to come forward about a crime which happened years ago.

Fair enough. If he’s being truthful then he’s an adult now. If he isn’t, then oh well.

That’s also my understanding. And despite the seriousness of the allegations (and some of the things the OP says he has done), there’s not much factual information to report. We have someone asserting that he’s the victim of a crime and may have committed a few himself, but we can’t say much about the alleged victim or how credible his story is. He also says he doesn’t want to go to the police about the abuse in any event.

The thread has now apparently disappeared. The link takes me to a page that says I don’t have sufficient privileges to access the page.


We’ve removed the thread for the time being.

Why is that? I had already posted in it.

I’m speculating but they’re probably discussing the legal liability. The original post in that thread was an accusation that a named individual had committed a serious felony. If it turned out the poster was making the accusation up, there might be potential for a libel suit.

If that was the case, all of those stupid “Glen Beck: rapist” posts would have been disappeared, most of the political thread would have been disappeared, etc.

There’s a difference between statements obviously made in jest and actual accusations. The idea that no one would assume you were making a factual statement is actually a legal defense against libel, if I understand correctly.

The thread was removed because moderator intervention was failing in keeping the discussion smooth and on-track. We’re not discussing legal liability or anything like that.

Aren’t threads like that normally locked, as opposed to being completely removed?

If the OP hadn’t mentioned the arson stuff, would the thread still be open? It’s a shame because it could have been a fascinating discussion with someone who had direct experience with Sandusky, assuming that he was being truthful.

Yes. The big issue here is that we’re concerned about whether or not the OP’s story is true. The thread was also getting out of hand and we don’t want to have to warn a bunch of posters for taking the bait. It’s a tricky situation for several reasons and we’re still talking about it. We may move the thread back into view; if so I think it will probably be in the Pit.

My first thought when I opened that thread.

Got it. Thanks.

After some more conversation this morning, we’ve banned boosher (the OP of that thread). There’s strong evidence his story was made up and that he’s trolled the board under a couple of different names, making up stories based on big news stories or board issues. The thread is going to stay out of view.

Wait – you mean the story about Sandusky buying him presents, and then him burning down his roommates house for slapping him may have been fabricated?

Yes, it was made up. Shocking, I know.

Oh man, now I want to know which other stories he’d used! Like, was he Director of the IMF? Did he get fired from Two and a Half Men for his drug use?